Through this single order , we intend to deal with the following writ petitions, which involve the same factual and legal controversy:- i) Writ Petition No.221907/2018 (Rao Muhammad Sarwar Vs. Returning Of ficer & another) ii) Writ Petition No.221266/2018 (Mian Muhammad Muneer Vs. Returning Of ficer & another) iii) W rit Petition No.221518/2018 (Mian Muhammad Akram Usman V . Election Commission of Pakistan etc.) iv) W rit Petition No.221576/2018 (Muhammad Ilyas V . The Appellate Election Tribunal etc.) v) Writ Petition No.221894/2018 (Mian Ameer Hamza V . Returning Of ficer & another) vi) W rit Petition No.221922/2018.(Muhammad Rashid Minhas V . Returning Of ficer etc.) vii) Writ Petition No.222338/2018 (Zulfiqar Ali V. Election Tribunal etc.) viii) Writ Petition No.222849/2018 Zaiba Ehsan V. Returning Officer) ix) W rit Petition No.222867/2018 (Syed Ghulam Nabi Shah V . Govt. of Pakistan etc.) x) Writ Petition No.223044/2018 (Dr . Suhrab Aslam Khan V . Appellate Election Tribunal etc.)
2. The petitioners and contesting respond ents in all the aforesaid constitutional petitions are candidates from their respective constituencies, whose nomination papers were rejected by the Returning Officer, inter alia, on the ground that their proposer and second er are not voters of the constituencies wherefrom the petitioners are contesting the forthcoming election. Being aggrieved of the said rejection orders, the petitioners filed appeals, which also met with the same fate vide impugned orders passed by the learned appellate tribunal; hence, these petitions.
3. On 27.06.2018, the following questions emerged after preliminary hearing/arguments advanced from the side of petitioner and the learned counsel representing the Election Commission was directed to ensure filing of written reply; besides the Director Law and Provincial Election Commissioner were required to appear in person so as to assist this Court:- i) Whether it was not the essential duty of Election Commission to provide the detailed particulars of proposer , seconder and the candidate including the number of constituency . Apparently , the receipt/certificate issued by the Election Commission is silent about the number of constituency and on the basis of this deficient information provided by the Election Commission, the petitioner/candidate could be considered at fault entailing rejection of his nomination papers? ii) Whether the Election Commission though has completed the delimitation process on 03.05.2018 but had it provided the information to the public at large through all the sources as required by law?
4. In response to the above queries, the learned counsels have entered appearance and made arguments but we did not find any reasonable and satisfactory reply from the Election Commission regarding non-provision of information-particulars of the constituencies, which was their essential and prime duty. Although we are clear in our mind that Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Full Bench of this Court had not permitted any substitution of proposer and seconder but the attending facts and circumstances, which persuade us to indulge ourselves to revisit all the provisions when the delimitation has been held very recently and the disputes in this regard were pending in different Courts of law but, as stated by the learned counsel representing one of the petitioners on account of Hon'ble Supreme Court's intervention and declaration to the Election Commission to hold the election on due date on the basis of existing delimitation notified in the official gazette in order to avoid the interruption of election process. Whereas on account of fresh delimitation many constituencies have been bifurcated-shuffled due to which even the voters-people living the same street(s) according to new delimitation have been divided into two constituencies. This Court in such situation feels itself under legal obligation to answer , 'whet her any concession can be granted to a candidate to rectify the error-mistake committed by him by submitting the nomination papers entering the names of proposer and seconder , not belonging to his newly created constituency on account of fresh delimitation whereas in the previous election, they were in the same constituency for which the candidate is now contesting the election.'
5. We are conscious of the fact that in presence of case-law of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Full Bench of this Court, we have a very narrow scope to examine this aspect but prevailing situation emerged on account of fresh delimitation was not before the august Supreme Court and Full Bench of this Court when the said verdict was enunciated and for that, at least, a larger Bench may be constituted to examine the anomaly occurred on account of reasons explained above, which causes a serious injury to the candidates of many constituencies, thus encourage us to admit all these petitions for regular hearing and refer the matter to Hon'ble Chief Justice for constitution of a Larger Bench so that a detailed and complete verdict may be announced. Re-list on 12.07.2018.
C.M.No.01/2018.
6. Dispensation sought for is allowed subject to all just and legal exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of.
C.M.No.02/2018.
7. Subject to notice for the said date, all the petitioners are allowed to submit their fresh certificates of proposer or/and seconder duly issued by the Election Commission reflecting their const ituency replacing their deficient proposer and seconder as per their constituencies from-where the candidates are contesting the election within two days and on the basis of said certificate issued by the Election Commission the name of the candidate-petitioner if otherwise found eligible shall be included in the list of eligible candidates, meanwhile.